Although GOP presidential contender Donald Trump’s use of gratuitous insults and gutter language may have made Maine Gov. Paul LePage’s seem almost tame by comparison, our governor still manages to embarrass himself, his party and his state with regularity.

Trump has labeled undocumented Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, called his opponents liars, cheats and low-energy failures, and advocated a total ban on Muslims entering the country.

Gov. LePage has invited the NAACP to “kiss my butt,” suggested that a Democratic state senator was sodomizing the people of Maine, said he would tell President Obama to “go to hell,” claimed that black drug traffickers were coming to Maine and leaving behind pregnant white girls, and called various legislators “idiots” and “socialists.” At a town hall meeting in Freeport last Tuesday, LePage pointed to asylum seekers as “the biggest problem in our state,” claiming they posed a public health threat by bringing hepatitis C, tuberculosis, AIDS, HIV and the “ziki fly” into Maine.

The acolytes of both men go to unbelievable lengths to rationalize their behavior. LePage, we’re told, is a “little rough around the edges” but needs to use provocative language to get things done in Augusta. Trump is styled as a “straight talker” in a world of carefully scripted, insincere professional politicians.

To buy this, you have to accept certain assumptions which are dubious at best — namely that LePage can’t get anything done in Augusta without crudely disparaging the motives, intelligence and integrity of those who disagree with him and that Trump’s cynical, calculated coarseness is accompanied by a scintilla of honesty or sincerity.

What’s really disturbing is that this sort of outrageous behavior, if it brings success at the polls, will become the new normal in American politics.

I suppose my own generation is at least partly at fault for the sad state of affairs. As Baby Boomers of the 1950s and 60s, we rebelled against the prim language and manners of our parents, thereby starting the unraveling of social conventions that comprised the unwritten code of “decency” of the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Our slogan was “drugs, sex and rock and roll.” We idolized actors, musicians, writers and comedians who were “bad” boys, rebels who flouted social conventions, like James Dean, Jim Morrison, Jack Kerouac and George Carlin.

We began to sprinkle our language with four-letter words relating to copulation and excretion. The generations that followed took this trend to its logical conclusion.

Today scatological language is part of common parlance, both public and private. It’s regularly seen and heard in print and on digital media. On reality t.v. shows, for instance, f**k is routinely used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb and exclamation. One can only imagine how television’s quintessential late-1950s-early-1960s sitcom parents, June and Ward Cleaver, would have reacted to a string of f-bombs from Beaver or Wally.

Mind you, I’m not unfamiliar with four-letter words. I was born and raised in New Jersey, where many of them were probably invented, and I’m prone to employing them myself on occasion to drive home a point. I am, however, unalterably opposed to their use by our elected representatives in performing their solemn duties or even by aspiring candidates in campaigning.

This is not just a matter of taste. I believe there’s real value in expecting those who seek or hold public office to speak and behave politely, because such conduct serves as both buffer and glue.

Why a buffer? Aggressive gutter language tends to raise adrenalin levels, making make it difficult for elected officials or their constituents to engage in rational discourse, reasoned debate or calm negotiations — the currency of any democracy. Politeness, therefore, is a buffer against civil strife.

Why a glue? By insulting others, particularly in ways that suggest they’re depraved, crooked, unpatriotic, cowardly, stupid, dangerous or subhuman, those in public positions inevitably alienate and anger the targets of their words. In democracy, where cohesion is more the product of voluntary allegiance than coercive force, the “consent of the governed” can only be gained by respecting the dignity of all. The message of an elected official should always be, “Even when I disagree with you, I respect you and value your opinion.” That’s part of the glue that holds society together and promotes respect for government and its representatives.

Foreign diplomacy requires even greater restraint in expression than domestic politics. A single insulting remark uttered by a U.S. official about a foreign country or its leaders can set off an unfortunate chain of events that disrupts alliances, leads to unnecessary armed conflicts or puts Americans abroad in harm’s way.

George Washington set a pitch-perfect tone for the U.S. presidency, conducting himself at all times with the studied dignity and restraint of a statesman. Every president since Washington, regardless of his politics, has endeavored to do the same. Even Richard Nixon, whose foul-mouthed, mean-spirited remarks to his inner circle were captured on secret White House tape recordings brought to light during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings, was a model of propriety in his public statements as president.

Maine has also had a tradition of electing dignified, highly effective men and women to the Blaine House and to Congress. Joshua Chamberlain, Margaret Chase Smith, Edmund Muskie, Kenneth Curtis, George Mitchell, William Cohen, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are but a few who come to mind.

As a political centrist, I can usually find at least some common ground with the policies of almost every political candidate or public official.

I can even buy some of what Trump and LePage are selling. What I cannot abide is the way they’re trying to sell it.

Elliott L. Epstein, a local attorney, is the founder of Museum L-A and author of “Lucifer’s Child,” a book about the notorious 1984 child murder of Angela Palmer. He may be reached at [email protected].